Board of Zoning Appeals

AREA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS OF TIPPECANOE COUNTY LAFAYETTE DIVISION October 17, 2022 The City of Lafayette Board of Zoning Appeals met in regular session on Monday, October 17, 2022 at 4:00 PM. Members present were: Jackson Bogan, Dave Williams, Dick Murray, Bob Metzger and Carlynn Smith. The meeting was called to order by Mr. Bogan. Mr. Williams moved to approve the minutes of the previous meeting as distributed; second by Mr. Metzger, The motion passed by unanimous voice vote. NEW BUSINESS: 2022-26 NORFLEET BUILDERS. INC. Multipie requests for property located at 2004 SCOTT ST. 1) Variance to reduce the side yard setback (Sherman St.) to 2' instead of the required 15' (carport) 2) Variance to reduce the side yard setback to 2) instead of the required 4' (carport) 3) Variance to increase the building coverage (including attached porch) to 41% instead of the allowed maximum of 35% 4) Variance to reduce the lot width for a two-family dwelling to 45.3' instead of the required 60' Mr. Williams moved to hear and approve the petition; second by Mr. Metzger. Kevin Riiey, agent for the petitioner, presented the petition. Mr. Riley stated that a duplex is being constructed on the property in question. The variances they are requesting pertain to a proposed carport at the rear of the property. The carport will serve both sides of the duplex and will load onto the alley. The new duplex and the proposed carport are improvements to this area. Mr. Riiey aiso stated that there are multiple properties in this area that have detached garages that span the entire width of their lots. He also referenced the staff report which mentioned similar variances granted in the past in this area and he believes his client's requests are consistent with these past variances. Mr. Murray asked how someone couid work on the side of the proposed carport without going onto the neighbor's property. Mr. Riiey stated that the ladder would most likely have to be on the house side of the carport but if the carport's side could not be reached, you would have to get permission from the neighboring property owner. Mr. Murray asked if a 3' setback would allow enough room to work on the side of the carport without the need to go onto the neighboring property. Todd Starr stated that there are 2' scaffolding options that he has personally used and he believes a 3' setback would allow for a ladder without encroaching onto the neighboring property. Mr. Bogan asked for clarification on requests 3 and 4 and if they relate specifically to the proposed carport Mr. Shively stated that the existing house did not exceed their maximum building coverage requirement but the carport put them over the requirement. He also stated that the ordinance allows residences and their accessory structures to be constructed on lots that may not meet square footage and width requirements as long as they meet all other requirements of the ordinance. In this case, since the carport requires variances, the lot width variance is necessary. Mr. Shively read two letters he received. The first letter was from Carla Bowerman at 2004 Thompson St. and detailed a concern for the clearance of the vehides that will be parking in the proposed carport. She owns the property directly behind 2004 Scott St. so she just wants to make sure that her garage will not be impacted by the proposed carport. The second ietter was from Hubert Grater at 1 906 Scott St. and he was in opposition of the proposed carport. He believes this carportwill cause additional congestion in the area and it may hinder driving vision. Even though the carport is intended to be used for parking, the property owner can use it for whatever they like. He believes the owner of 2004 Scott St. is planning on developing other lots in this area and he is worried that these variances wii! set a precedent for future developments. Mr. Riley stated that the structure Es open on all sides so he does not believe it will cause any vision problems. They have adequate space to turn into the carport so they are not concerned about that either. He stated that each request is looked at separately and even though similar variances may be granted on specific properties, these variances are not binding to the area. Something may work on certain properties that may not work on others so they are not setting a precedent for future developments. The board voted by ballot: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED 2) 5 yes O no. Petition GRANTED 3) 5 yes O no. Petition GRANTED 4) 5 yes O no. Petition GRANTED 2022-27 STAN MITHOEFER Variance to increase the tota! sign area to 89.9 SF instead of the allowed 40 SF. Property located at 140 FRONTAGE RD. STE. 5. Mr. Williams moved to hear and approve the petition; second by Mr. Metzger. Abby Nee!y, agent for the petitioner, presented the petition. The petitioner, Stan Mithoefer, was also present. IVIrs. Neely stated that the existing building at 140 Frontage Rd. does not currently have a sign on the north side of the building. El Rodeo is in the northernmost tenant space and they would like to add a sign to this empty spot on the buiiding. They had another location on Beck Ln. that recently closed and they would like to get some use out of the sign they had at that location. The sign that would be repurposed from the Beck Ln. iocation is 40 square feet which would be added to their existing 49.9 square feet sign at 140 Frontage Rd. The board voted by ballot: 1) 5 yes 0 no. Petition GRANTED The next meeting of the Lafayette Board of Zoning Appeals will be on Monday, November 21, 2022 at 4:00 PM. There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30 PM. r Chaiprfan ^ ' Secretary /